Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

My Laptop is too big!

marioman38 said:
+1 for a higher res 15" thats why I don't feel so bad going down to a 13".

Don't mean to extend the thread too long, but I'm just trying to notice the differences between the 17" MBP classic, and the 13" Pro.

+ Magnetic Lid
+ Newer Architecture CPU
+ 7 Hour Battery
+ SD Card Reader
+ Light Weight
+ Up to 8 GB Ram
+ Faster FSB
+ LCD Backlight Screen

- Only one fan!? (Runs hotter?)
- Discrete GPU
- Front Row Remote
- ExpressCard
- "Slower" Processor
- Lower Res Screen
- Glossy Screen Only!
- One USB Port
- FW 400
- Crappy Speakers

More?

It's in my cart. Thanks Apple for the $100 edu discount now, the iPod, and $100 off the Canon Pixma MX860 :D
Click to expand...

New one will run cooler. It's a lot newer architecture and it doesn't need to cool a discrete GPU because it doesn't have one.

The only thing you'll be missing from your discrete graphics is that it doesn't steal RAM. 9400 is faster than X1600. Not by much, but still faster. Plus it supports hardware h.264 decoding and OpenCL in 10.6

The CPU is not slower either. A lot newer architecture + waaay faster FSB and RAM = *kicks your 2.33 out of the way* :) I had no idea how important FSB speed was until I got this 2 GHz Alu iMac. It has 2 GHz C2D, just as my MacBook, but somehow it gets 25-29 FPS in Handbrake when MB can only get 19-23. Both machines have the same optical drives, same RAM speeds, same CPU speeds, same CPU L2 cache, but iMac has 800 MHz FSB and MB has 667. iMac's CPU was probably a bit newer too though.
 
Just in case you're still second guessing the 15/13 decision ... member MODULAR posted this in another thread. Pictures tell a thousand words ...

eV


modular said:
I'm trying to decided between a 15" and a 17", along with a lot of other people it seems (based on the number of threads here). So I've comped up some images showing the screen resolution differences. not only are these images the same size as it's respective laptop screen, it also shows the difference in pixel density. the 17 is 133ppi, while the 15 is 110ppi and 13 is 113ppi (thanks for the correction slffl).

note: these are basically fakes screen shots (i know it's got a tiger menu bar and a leopard dock). the point is just to show the difference in screen real estate with the line of macbooks.

I hope someone finds this useful!

here we first have the 13", then the 15" and the best for last, the 17".

13macbook113dpi.jpg


15macbook110dpi.jpg


macbook17.jpg
Click to expand...
 
To me it looks like you either go for the 17" if you want it all (and have the dough to spare) or the 13" no? The screen difference between the 15" and 13" are minimal.

My MBP is only 1680x1050, so the HR ones can show even more! No go for the $$ though :rolleyes:

These new MBP's use what? Penryn? With gains of SSE4? That helps with video encoding?

Yes, damn you apple and your sleek keyboards! The gf has a white macbook she bought (a week before the free iPod, I told her to wait!) I just don't like them, the keys are so awkward, and that glass trackpad? But whaddaya gonna do :confused:
 
I would go for the 13" and then get an external to increase screen space when not on the move :)
 
macgrl said:
I would go for the 13" and then get an external to increase screen space when not on the move :)
Click to expand...

Which model? I know there's a million threads on this but you guys can probably give me a quick answer since we were all considering the larger one. This is my payment for going and doing the research yesterday :) :)

Should I get the base and bump up the RAM/HD or go for the high end one? Once I add the 4 G RAM and a larger HD to the base model the price is pretty close to the next one up. At some point I suppose I could add a 7200 larger drive or SSD into the base one right? How much do they run for?

Thanks,

eV
 
I'm going base model, adding 4gb Crucial Ram, and a 5.4k 500GB Scorpio Blue HDD from Newegg. The 5.4k 500GB was rated faster than the 7.2k drive, I've heard because the disk is higher density. Also it gets better battery performance! :D

I have a thread on the new macbook HDD here.
 
eVolcre said:
If you meant me. :)

It's getting a little unwieldy and sometimes a PITA to take from one spot to the other. I'd prefer something smaller at this point and that's AFTER 3 years of using a 17" in every possible scenario.

eV
Click to expand...

I've had 17" PowerBook, and 2 17" MBP. No problems at all. And girls hit on me because I am in shape. ;)
 
The X1600 is a very old card. I'm not surprised at all that the 9400M is faster. In fact, I would have been greatly disappointed if it was slower.
 
marioman38 said:
I'm going base model, adding 4gb Crucial Ram, and a 5.4k 500GB Scorpio Blue HDD from Newegg. The 5.4k 500GB was rated faster than the 7.2k drive, I've heard because the disk is higher density. Also it gets better battery performance! :D

I have a thread on the new macbook HDD here.
Click to expand...


I have a feeling you might shoot me after this post but I have an update :eek:

I went back this morning to make sure I wasn't letting online reviews and 'logic' talk me into getting the little guy. This time I specifically went in to check screen quality and physical size including the MBA in my decision. I had talked (thought) myself out of the MBA but my heart still wants that machine.

I took the 4 machines into a back room (my 17" Applecare story has become the in store joke at this point so they're letting me get away with being very anal). I did two tests this time. One was the same as before - web page and word document and the second was the same picture in iPhoto, full screen, zoomed in all the way.

The 13" looked a little washed out when compared to the 15" screen. Maybe not by much but I could notice it. The 17" is in a league of its own. When compared to the 13" MBP the new MBA still seemed much much better. Noticeably so.

I'm very torn/confused AGAIN at this point. At first I was set on the 15". But the very slight increase in portability (its still quite big/heavy) doesn't justify the dramatic drop in the screen resolution. Yesterday, before I did my second subjective visual test at the Store in a darm rook, I had convinced myself to go with the 13" MBP. Figured if I was dropping resolution and had to get used to a smaller work space, I may as well get some real portability and get used to the 13" screen.

Now .. I can't live with the screen on the 13" MBP. Resolution I have no choice but the actual screen is a step down from both the 15" and the MBA.

The 13" MBP is still a chunky heavy machine and I'm coming from a 17" aircraft carrier. If you're going to go 'small and portable' the MBA is it. The little MBP just did_not_do_it for me. There's also a slight elitist thing. (may as well be honest here). I don't want the cheap machine everyone has now that the price is affordable. I do want something different / 'pro' to set me apart. The 17" MBP has the fantastic screen and the bragging rights of being the lightest, thinnest desktop replacement. The 13/15 MBPs are just ... meh.

I played with the new MBA with SSD. That's the one I want and lust after but I don't think its a smart move to buy it right now. I do like the glass trackpad on the others and given the red headed step child treatment, I think its close to being EOLed.

Honestly, I think I'm going to skip this round of updates and see what's next. I *like* them but don't need them and the one that I want - MBA - I'm nervous about buying. The specs are pretty low as well.

I'm pretty sure I can squeeze another year out of my trusty workhorse. (It's a joke at the store because when I went in to pick it up the inventory list of repairs said - Screen, Screen Bezel, Keyboard, Top case, Bottom Case, Both fans and the logic board!!! What's left?? :eek:)

Maybe I should have kept quiet instead of confusing myself and everyone else in this thread buuut ... wanted to be honest and help anyone trying to make a similar decision ...

Cheers,

eV
 
Bengt77 said:
The X1600 is a very old card. I'm not surprised at all that the 9400M is faster. In fact, I would have been greatly disappointed if it was slower.
Click to expand...

A lot of benchmarks have it significantly faster. On passmarks website it is listed as much faster based on the score. Its a dedicated card vs an integrated one. I doubt that the 9400m which has to go through the frontside bus to access it memory is faster than a dedicated card with a much more powerful gpu. It owns the 9400m in older version of 3dmark. The reason it does poorly in the new version is because its directx 9. But that doesn't matter inside OS X.
 
If it weren't for the free iPod, I'd skip this round too, waiting for a 1440x900 13".

I plan to sell the iPod though essentially making the MBP that much cheaper.

MBA, perfect if I also had an iMac! haha, don't have the $

Bummer about the poor quality of the 13" MBP screen, everyone else seems content :confused:
 
marioman38 said:
If it weren't for the free iPod, I'd skip this round too, waiting for a 1440x900 13".

I plan to sell the iPod though essentially making the MBP that much cheaper.

MBA, perfect if I also had an iMac! haha, don't have the $

Bummer about the poor quality of the 13" MBP screen, everyone else seems content :confused:
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - it's not poor by itself. But in comparison to the rest of the lineup, there's a definite difference in quality (lower) and knowing me, it'll keep eating at me and I'll have buyers remorse. I should have stayed away from the store, ordered it online and never seen the others. Ignorance sometimes is bliss ...

eV
 
Haha, okay, I won't be going to the store then! lol. The value of the lowest end MBP is so great, I won't consider any others :)

--

Comments on the Western Digital Scorpio 500gb 5400rpm in the 13"

Where's the best place to buy 4gb (tax free?) Crucial Ram?

My only last question is about Lightroom and Aperture specifically related to the 13" screen? I'm a 2 year LR user, but now would be my time to switch. My library is only ~ 3000 pics. How is the interface in LR directly relating to the 13" display, is it a little cramped?

Thanks Guys and Gals!! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back